Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1.You can break it into categories if you want, but each of those phrases is meaningless. What does matter is where you draw the balancing line in each case between each person's rights/responsibilities.
Each person's moral responsibility is to take care of their friends, their family, and their community. Their legal responsibility is to no infringe on the rights of others to be left alone.
Also, religious freedom is especially meaningless since there is no such thing as religion. Any rational definition of religion would include the beliefs of every person on earth, thus making it a meaningless term. Historically the word "religion" has been used to legally discriminate against less politically powerful belief systems.
See, now you're just trolling. This is silliness on stilts.
2.I don't agree with this. Imposing costs on other people(which they clearly are doing) is coercion. Period. We can discuss whether those costs are justified or not.
The only way to impose your medical costs on others is through flawed legislation. If we have such legislation (and we do), then fix that, not double down on flawed policy.
3. :club: This argument would work better if the rest of the civilized world didn't have NHSs that provided similar levels of care
LOL. Just LOL
I don't know if you noticed, but virtually every person on the planet pays for things they find morally objectionable.
So you're saying two wrongs make a right?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What's the difference between a particular gene sequence in an abstract sense and a particular gene sequence that exists within a cell? Can you explain the difference in a way that doesn't boil down

This is pretty funny. The problem isn't the itty bitty details. The problem is Romney refuses to say if he's going to play Poker or Go Fish with the cards, and is on record as saying he doesn't know

I see.   I'd rather give the poor tax breaks than give them welfare. As a general rule. Let them keep their money to live on rather than take their money and then provide for them.

Then don't use it. You don't have the right to make that decision for other people though.
You're completely upside-down on this. I'm not suggesting forcing a decision on anybody.
I would have to see the costs of them getting additional coverage from somewhere else before agreeing with this.
People don't need coverage for birth control any more than they need coverage for hamburgers. They need a product.
Link to post
Share on other sites
See, now you're just trolling. This is silliness on stilts.So you're saying two wrongs make a right?
I'm not trolling. There is no such thing as a non-discriminatory definition of religion. Either the definition applies to everyone and becomes useless, or it is discriminatory. The government has no business defining it. You'd think a libertarian of all people would agree with this. I'm saying it is an inescapable part of life. You can choose to live as a complete savage, or compromise(tacitly support things you disagree with) and live as part of a society.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not trolling. There is no such thing as a non-discriminatory definition of religion. Either the definition applies to everyone and becomes useless, or it is discriminatory. The government has no business defining it. You'd think a libertarian of all people would agree with this. I'm saying it is an inescapable part of life. You can choose to live as a complete savage, or compromise(tacitly support things you disagree with) and live as part of a society.
Doesn't make sense to compromise with a government that behaves like a complete savage. The Catholic Church tending to the sick and feeding the hungry appear to be doing their part. The government is the one who has decided it is "sane" and "desirable" to treat pregnancy as a disease to be prevented or invasively terminated. That is savage. Left wing social programs have already caused the complete breakdown of the family which has ruined the inner cities. The school system is destroyed beyond repair, but now we are expected to sit quietly by why these same people take over health care? No thanks.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not trolling. There is no such thing as a non-discriminatory definition of religion. Either the definition applies to everyone and becomes useless, or it is discriminatory. The government has no business defining it. You'd think a libertarian of all people would agree with this. I'm saying it is an inescapable part of life. You can choose to live as a complete savage, or compromise(tacitly support things you disagree with) and live as part of a society.
There is a common definition of religion. If you choose not to use it, that is your prerogative, but nobody will take you seriously. Words are not to be redefined or discarded as is convenient to your latest argument.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a common definition of religion. If you choose not to use it, that is your prerogative, but nobody will take you seriously. Words are not to be redefined or discarded as is convenient to your latest argument.
There is no useful definition. Show me a definition of religion that is accurate, exclusive and not self-referential. For example, the one at dictionary.com fails on exclusivity. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,"Every person on earth and almost any belief would qualify as religious, making it entirely meaningless as a legal distinction.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Left wing social programs have already caused the complete breakdown of the family which has ruined the inner cities.
hahahahahahha. That's why the divorce rate jumps significantly in the bible belt!Tell moar jokes, plz!
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no useful definition. Show me a definition of religion that is accurate, exclusive and not self-referential. For example, the one at dictionary.com fails on exclusivity. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,"Every person on earth and almost any belief would qualify as religious, making it entirely meaningless as a legal distinction.
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."So what if everyone qualifies? I personally don't think science qualifies, though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So what if everyone qualifies? I personally don't think science qualifies, though.
If everyone qualifies then you can't possibly use it as a legal definition.The US should eliminate all religious laws because they are based on irrational and discriminatory definitions of what a religion is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If everyone qualifies then you can't possibly use it as a legal definition.
"A human being is any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. "Gee, I guess there is no meaningful definition of human. Therefore, we have no more rights than animals or plants.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Curious, do you think a higher divorce rate is a good thing?
No, I don't actually. I think two parent families are preferable (though I don't care the gender make-up of the two); I think way too many people get married who should not do so; I think way too many people give up on marriages too easily especially in the first 2 years. I wish I understood why gay marriage is more offensive to people than Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries. And despite what BG will tell you, Democrats don't support social anarchy. I don't really care that the divorce rate is so high---free country and all that, right? I do find it galling that a country with a divorce rate over 50% accuses homosexuals of trying to threaten the sanctity of marriage.I only bring up that statistic to refute the nonsense that the left has "caused" the breakdown of the family. It's hard to pin that on the left when the area of the country where the right is the strongest is leading the league in divorces which is literally the breakdown of a family.edit: regarding contraceptives, stfu catholic church. I am so tired of having to pretend like this logic train is a "sane position"-----oppose contraception that prevents unwanted pregnancies then insist on how all women should have to handle unwanted pregnancies. It's basically like Paula Deen pimping recipes filled with cream and butter for years and then getting paid to be a spokesperson for diabetes medication.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If everyone qualifies then you can't possibly use it as a legal definition.The US should eliminate all religious laws because they are based on irrational and discriminatory definitions of what a religion is.
I agree; I don't think that the First Amendment should protect the Catholic position in this case. The First Amendment should prevent the government from suppressing the expression of ideas of Catholicism but not create special rights for Catholics.If I say that, as a practicing Sith, the First Amendment protects my right to choke people to death; someone has to stand up and say my religion is dumb and, while I'm free to believe it, I can't practice it. Well, lots of religions are dumb from the perspective of everybody else. And it very difficult to argue legally for how exactly dumb a religion has to be before it stops granting special rights.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I only bring up that statistic to refute the nonsense that the left has "caused" the breakdown of the family. It's hard to pin that on the left when the area of the country where the right is the strongest is leading the league in divorces which is literally the breakdown of a family.
I don't buy that the left is mainly responsible for the breakdown of the family, but....if you combine the fact that red states tend to be net recipients of tax money and blue states net payers....wouldn't that support the theory that more government funding breaks down the family?Personally, I think the Insane War on Drugs is probably the biggest governmental factor in the breakdown of families, and that is bi-partisan. I would guess the biggest factor overall is that both men and women can now support themselves, and therefore are less likely to stay in a crappy marriage. In other words, richer societies have less need for the institutions that were implemented to promote fiscal stability. Certainly the failed social programs that encouraged multi-generational welfare were a factor. That is less of an issue since the Clinton reforms.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I don't actually. I think two parent families are preferable (though I don't care the gender make-up of the two); I think way too many people get married who should not do so; I think way too many people give up on marriages too easily especially in the first 2 years. I wish I understood why gay marriage is more offensive to people than Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries. And despite what BG will tell you, Democrats don't support social anarchy. I don't really care that the divorce rate is so high---free country and all that, right? I do find it galling that a country with a divorce rate over 50% accuses homosexuals of trying to threaten the sanctity of marriage.I only bring up that statistic to refute the nonsense that the left has "caused" the breakdown of the family. It's hard to pin that on the left when the area of the country where the right is the strongest is leading the league in divorces which is literally the breakdown of a family.
Your cheating there, if you never get married of course you won't get divorced. Unwed mothers is just as big if not a bigger part of the breakdown. I think you can correctly pin the vast majority of the problem of the breakdown of the family on the left, though it is apparent that many Christian Churches are failing to distinguish themselves from society at large which means it contributes to a problem it is supposed to be helping resolve. Call em civil unions, and get the government out of marriage all together in you solve that problem. The problem is that homosexual lobby wants to make Christians acknowledge their unions as legitimate, and eventually make it a crime to preach against such activity. If is wasn't for the gay lobby the church would be giving this much less attention. As far as Kim and Chris, I can only speak for myself when I say I find their behavior much more offensive.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I don't actually. I think two parent families are preferable (though I don't care the gender make-up of the two); I think way too many people get married who should not do so; I think way too many people give up on marriages too easily especially in the first 2 years. I wish I understood why gay marriage is more offensive to people than Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries. And despite what BG will tell you, Democrats don't support social anarchy. I don't really care that the divorce rate is so high---free country and all that, right? I do find it galling that a country with a divorce rate over 50% accuses homosexuals of trying to threaten the sanctity of marriage.I only bring up that statistic to refute the nonsense that the left has "caused" the breakdown of the family. It's hard to pin that on the left when the area of the country where the right is the strongest is leading the league in divorces which is literally the breakdown of a family.
Your cheating there, if you never get married of course you won't get divorced. Unwed mothers is just as big if not a bigger part of the breakdown. I think you can correctly pin the vast majority of the problem of the breakdown of the family on the left, though it is apparent that many Christian Churches are failing to distinguish themselves from society at large which means it contributes to a problem it is supposed to be helping resolve. Call em civil unions, and get the government out of marriage all together in you solve that problem. The problem is that homosexual lobby wants to make Christians acknowledge their unions as legitimate, and eventually make it a crime to preach against such activity. If is wasn't for the gay lobby the church would be giving this much less attention. As far as Kim and Chris, I can only speak for myself when I say I find their behavior much more offensive.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And it very difficult to argue legally for how exactly dumb a religion has to be before it stops granting special rights.
There's a very easy test: when it starts harming those who are not willingly part of that religion or when it prevents others from exercising equal rights to their religion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a very easy test: when it starts harming those who are not willingly part of that religion or when it prevents others from exercising equal rights to their religion.
I think that's the test for freedom in general, which is what Snow is saying. I don't think it matters whether or not the "it" is religious behavior or not.E.g., should Rastafarians be able to do drugs that aren't hurting anybody else because it's part of their religion? Or just because they aren't hurting anybody else?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that's the test for freedom in general, which is what Snow is saying. I don't think it matters whether or not the "it" is religious behavior or not.E.g., should Rastafarians be able to do drugs that aren't hurting anybody else because it's part of their religion? Or just because they aren't hurting anybody else?
Ah, I see now, I missed that the first time. I'm trying to think of an example of something that must be allowed as a religious freedom that would not be allowed under general freedoms. And the other way, too: things that we may not be forced to do because of religion but would otherwise be OK to force us to do.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, they let the KKK throw a parade in the Jewish suburb of Chicago.....acting like criminalizing religious speech against gay marriage is some sort of likely scenario (or even a goal of the homosexual lobby) is beyond ludicrous.This is the kind of nonsense you have to invent to argue against letting two human beings of consenting age who love each other have a ceremony to celebrate their union.

Link to post
Share on other sites
what?
Seriously, they let the KKK throw a parade in the Jewish suburb of Chicago.....acting like criminalizing religious speech against gay marriage is some sort of likely scenario (or even a goal of the homosexual lobby) is beyond ludicrous.This is the kind of nonsense you have to invent to argue against letting two human beings of consenting age who love each other have a ceremony to celebrate their union.
Hell there have already been cases in Britian, Sweden, Canada, Australia. There is definately a push towards this. Why does the gay lobby insist on changing the definition of marriage. If they simply want the same legal rights under the law, fine, call them civil unions and be on with it. They won't do it becuase they have a different agenda.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I think the Insane War on Drugs is probably the biggest governmental factor in the breakdown of families, and that is bi-partisan. I would guess the biggest factor overall is that both men and women can now support themselves, and therefore are less likely to stay in a crappy marriage. In other words, richer societies have less need for the institutions that were implemented to promote fiscal stability. Certainly the failed social programs that encouraged multi-generational welfare were a factor. That is less of an issue since the Clinton reforms.
I agree with this. Also, marriage is just not necessary in the same way it was in the past as a means to control inheritance, especially in the face of high estate taxes. Marriage is basically a cultural relic from another time. The end of arranged marriage was probably the beginning of the end.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...